The Acronym Trap: AI SEO Is the New Mirage

Acronyms aren’t strategies, they’re power moves. Whoever names the term controls the conversation.

This is a column about technology. See my full ethics disclosure here.

The SEO industry has always loved acronyms. LSI, E-E-A-T, YMYL, Core Web Vitals, the list goes on and on… each one sparked a cottage industry of consultants and quick fixes. Now we’re seeing a new round of “AI SEO” jargon, often packaged with promises of shortcuts and insider secrets.

I appreciate John Mueller’s take on this because these cycles usually follow the same script:

• Google (and now AI tools) makes a change.

• A clever acronym emerges.

• Agencies rush to productize it.

• Within a year or two, most of it collapses back into the broader set of fundamentals.

AI isn’t exempt. It’s powerful, yes, but it doesn’t rewrite the mechanics of how discovery works. Search engines, AI agents, whatever comes next they still rely on the same bedrock: clear language, structured context, authoritative sources. AI doesn’t change those requirements. It amplifies them.

What makes this round different is how much the language itself matters. Acronyms aren’t just shortcuts; they’re tools of control. Whoever coins the acronym controls the conversation and often the client budgets. Think about it: when SEOs adopted “E-E-A-T” wholesale, Google didn’t invent the underlying ideas of expertise or trust. They simply branded them, and suddenly the industry began auditing against Google’s vocabulary.

That’s happening again with AI. “AI SEO” isn’t a defined discipline. It’s a floating signifier, a way to sell urgency without clarity. And when Google steps in to dismiss new acronyms, it’s doing more than protecting webmasters from scams. It’s reasserting its linguistic dominance. If Google doesn’t name it, it doesn’t exist. If they do name it, it becomes doctrine. That said, I’m glad John said what he said.

The real danger isn’t AI changing search. It’s us mistaking new acronyms for new mechanics of search and what I like to refer to as “Machine UX (MUX)”. Every time we chase jargon, we risk forgetting that what matters hasn’t shifted:

• Can machines parse your site?

• Can humans trust your content?

• Can both connect those dots reliably?

The rest is packaging.

For practitioners, the challenge is to resist the mirage. Acronyms will come and go, but the work that endures is the work grounded in fundamentals. We don’t need daily buzzwords dictating the roadmap.

Because at the end of the day, the acronym game isn’t about search. It’s about power and who gets to define what matters.